|
Causes National Storm Democrats Blast U.S. Senate's #3 Republican, Rick Santorum White House and GOP Party Bigwigs are Refusing to Comment
Democratic Presidential candidate, Governor Howard Dean, responded with flair, calling for Santorum's immediate resignation. He said: "Yesterday, I called on President Bush and the Republican Party leadership to condemn Senator Rick Santorum for his deeply offensive remarks comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. As additional reports have come to light, revealing a disturbing history of inflammatory, anti-gay rhetoric by Senator Santorum, the deafening silence of President Bush and his party has become inexcusable. "Sen. Santorum has refused to apologize for his repugnant remarks, calling his comments "a legitimate public policy discussion." Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral. Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate. Today I call on Rick Santorum to resign from his post as Republican Conference Chairman. "Once again, I call on President Bush to repudiate Sen. Santorum's remarks. The President of the United States must represent all Americans, regardless of race, gender, class or sexual orientation. In a nation dedicated to equality under the law, everyone must be equal under the law. By refusing to stand up for gay Americans under attack by members of his own party's leadership, this President sends a message that intolerance and bigotry is acceptable. That is not acceptable." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has released the unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Santorum. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible). Associated Press Transcript: AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?
Santorum: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it. AP: The right to privacy lifestyle? Santorum: The right to privacy lifestyle. AP: What's the alternative? Santorum: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it. AP: Well, what would you do? Santorum: What would I do with what? AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative? Santorum: First off, I don't believe -- AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality? Santorum: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual,you would argue that they should not have sex? Santorum: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality -- AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out. Santorum: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society. AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it? Santorum: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. People for the American Way Responds: People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas released the following statement yesterday criticizing Santorum's logic: "Senator Rick Santorum's remarks comparing the protection of Americans' privacy in their own homes to protecting bigamy and incest came as a disappointment, but, sadly, not as a surprise. Santorum's record demonstrates a history of hostility toward equal rights for all Americans, and that hostility is reflected in the attitudes of the Republican party leaders and the many of the judicial nominees of President Bush." "Santorum missed an opportunity to apologize for these insensitive comments. "Instead, he claimed that his comments were in keeping with his belief that everyone is 'equal under the Constitution.' It is evident from his record that this is not the case. The White House and Santorum's colleagues in the GOP leadership also chose to maintain their silence on Santorum's attack on equal rights. They should repudiate his comments, and affirm an inclusive vision of America where privacy and equal rights are guaranteed for all. "Since 2001, Santorum, with the president's blessing, has worked to include language specifically authorizing discrimination into a piece of so-called 'faith-based' legislation. Santorum previously admitted that he wanted to allow religious organizations to be able to take public funds but still discriminate against gay people. Fortunately, despite Santorum's position as third-highest ranking Republican in the Senate Leadership, he was forced to remove his divisive provisions from the final version passed in the Senate. "Santorum's record closely matches that of other far right ideologues. Alabama Attorney General William Pryor - who is one of President Bush's troubling federal appeals court nominees - in his state's amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in the Texas case equated the right of gay Americans to engage in consensual sex within their own homes to 'activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia...' "The comments of Santorum's spokesperson that he 'has no problem with gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender individuals' rings hollow. Santorum describes gay people as a threat to healthy families. His record supporting discrimination through charitable choice legislation, and his opposition to hate crimes legislation demonstrate instead that Santorum believes gay Americans don't deserve full equality with other Americans. "The silence from the White House and Republican party leaders about Senator Santorum's comments, combined with Bush's troubling judicial nominees and his executive orders supporting discriminatory hiring in religious institutions, all point to the high stakes in this summer's likely battle for the future of the Supreme Court. Will the next justice support privacy and equal rights for all, or will these and other freedoms be restricted for generations to come?" |
Sen. Rick Santorum watches Bush sign legislation into law 
Rep. Barney Frank says Sen. Santorum 'knows exactly what he's doing' when he made anti-gay comments to the Associated Press